English
Because the individual is the owner of that monastery. Giving to the monastery is the same as giving to the individual. If this is the case, one incurs the offense to be dealt with by the training rule stated as, "He is one who abstains from accepting fields and land," etc. But it should not be rejected for a monastic monastery. Why? Because that individual is not the owner of that monastic monastery. Even for one who takes without cutting off any small or large area given to the Sangha of the four directions, there is no defeat, because it is impossible to entrust the burden to the entire Sangha of the four directions. Therefore, rejecting what is given to a monastic monastery causes obstruction to the Sangha's gain. With this meaning in mind, "giving to the monastery" may have been said referring to a monastic monastery, not even accepting it as personal property. "It is not permissible." In this case, "by relinquishing responsibility of the owners" means that if a lake or field belongs to one person, taking it by relinquishing responsibility constitutes a pārājika offense. But if the lake is for common use and the fields are individually owned, there is an offense of appropriation by relinquishing responsibility. If the fields are also for common use, then relinquishing responsibility for all constitutes a pārājika offense; it is not permissible, it should be understood. This would not contradict the statement in the Vimativinodanī, for if a monastery with fields and property is not considered individually owned, how could a person bring a charge concerning the fields and property? However, one might say, "Here, 'relinquishing responsibility' refers only to property belonging to a householder when a lake or field belongs to one person." Even so, it should not be said. Why? Because the phrase "relinquishing responsibility when the owner is stubborn and harsh, and might even cause danger to my life or celibacy, I have had enough of this" is seen. Therefore, the Vimativinodanī says, "the fields are individually owned, and there is an offense of appropriation by relinquishing responsibility." Similarly, "I allow, monks, the use of all the monastery" means that even in individually owned lodgings, one is restricted to using items such as golden pots in accordance with the rules of using the lodging, but it is not permissible to take them and use them as one's own. This would not contradict the statement in the Sāratthadīpanī. Similarly, it is consistent with the commentary statement, "There is nothing that should be prohibited in a lodging except for a conflicting lodging." It is also consistent with the sutta, "Monks, whatever I have not rejected as impermissible, if it is permissible, conform to it; if it is impermissible, reject it; that is permissible for you." How can the accepted meaning of a monastery allowed by "I allow, monks, five kinds of lodgings" be used? Only permissible requisites such as robes related to it should be used. And the requisites of a monk, such as monastery, alms food, medicine for the sick, are all allowable for him, and in accordance with what is allowable. Thus, by comparing with the Suttas, with what accords with the Suttas, with the teacher's teachings, and with one's own opinion, just as the water of the Yamuna with the water of the Ganges, a monastery with fields and lands, even if accepted as personal property, should be seen as allowable or unallowable by those skilled in the Vinaya. This is the unanimous explanation of the great elders residing in Isinagara. "And those people, having arranged heavy goods, carried them away. And there is a relinquishing of the burden, they have not incurred a Pārājika offense, this question has been considered by the skillful." This question was spoken regarding a monk who steals common ground, for there is no carrying away, since there is no relinquishing of the burden for the present Saṅgha, nor for the Saṅgha of the four directions. This is the consideration of the boundary of gain. The boundaries of villages, market towns, and cities are indeed well-known. But their distinction should be understood thus: In whatever place there is only a market, but not enclosed by walls, or only enclosed by walls, but not a market, this place is called a village. In whatever place there is only a village, but no markets or walls, this place is called a market town. But where there is both a market and enclosure by walls, this place is called a city. This place is called a city, because it is fit for the residence of kings or high officials, according to the expression "there are ramparts here." But in worldly treatises: "A wise man should show a city, with diverse shrines, palaces, shops, and mansions, and a royal road adorned." It is said. Thus, having known the distinction between villages, market towns, and cities, the village itself is the village boundary, the market town itself is the market town boundary, the city itself is the city boundary, the meaning of these words should be understood. There, whatever place a monk dwells in, relying on a village or market town, without having established a boundary with consent, whatever is the village boundary of that village, or the market town boundary of that market town, there is cohabitation and a single Uposatha. Permitted, in that region, the entire village area. Or, in a single village field, if a king designates a place, "Let this be a separate village," and gives it to someone, that too is a separate village boundary. Therefore, that and the other natural village, town, and market town boundaries are like established boundaries. Only, they do not receive the exemption from the three-robe exile. Here, some say, "Kings like Pasenadi Kosala give to Pokkharasāti and others by pouring water as a gift, only what is given as a brahmin's gift is a separate village boundary, not a matter of income, because it is subject to division and destruction, and not under their control." But this should not be seen that way, because the king has the right to divide and destroy. Thus, according to the conventions of the world, "This region is the boundary of this village," only what is designated by those in authority is valid. If he were to divide and destroy, he would still be called a king. That village area would be the boundary of a city or kingdom, not just a village boundary. Therefore, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya commentary, "In whatever area the village headmen receive taxes for that village, whether that area is small or large, it is called a village boundary. The same method applies to city and market town boundaries." This is the consideration of village, market town, and city boundaries. An inner boundary is a place in the wilderness, not a village, where monks are permitted, "Within seven 'abbhantaras' all around, here is shared residence and a single Uposatha," that is called an inner boundary. There, "within seven 'abbhantaras' all around" means, in whatever wilderness resembling the Vindhya forest a monk dwells, from his dwelling place, seven 'abbhantaras' to the east, seven 'abbhantaras' to the west, seven 'abbhantaras' to the south, seven 'abbhantaras' to the north, thus, seven 'abbhantaras' all around. "With the exclusion, fourteen" means, fourteen 'abbhantaras' east to west, and fourteen 'abbhantaras' south to north, thus, with the exclusion, fourteen, fourteen. Having made twenty-eight inner enclosures all around. And here, one inner enclosure is twenty-eight cubits in extent, Therefore, to the east, seven inner enclosures are one hundred ninety-six cubits in extent, Thus, to the south, north, and west also, Having combined all, it is seven hundred eighty-four cubits in extent. In terms of circumference, however, all are one thousand one hundred seventy-six. But when measured by the natural measure – "Five hands make a rod, twenty rods an ox-length; Thirty ox-lengths a cow-length, four cow-lengths a league." Because it was said, by natural measure, in the penetration, fourteen inner enclosures are seventy-eight cubits plus two. Having combined all twenty-eight inner enclosures, it is one hundred fifty-six plus four cubits. In terms of circumference, however, it is two hundred thirty-four plus six cubits, By ox-length measure, however, in the penetration, fourteen inner enclosures are four ox-lengths less two, and two spans. Having combined all, in the twenty-eight inner enclosures, there are seven ox-lengths plus four spans and sixteen natural measures. In terms of circumference, however, there are eleven ox-lengths plus six spans and fourteen natural measures. This is the essential determination here. Some, however, imagining the word "inner enclosure" to mean "cubit-span," say thus: Since it was said, "For one standing in the middle, fourteen are penetrated all around," To the east, seven cubits, to the south, north, and west also, seven cubits each, Thus, by penetration, there are fourteen cubits. Having combined all, the inner enclosure is twenty-eight cubits. That is merely their opinion, not to be accepted as essential. Why? Because in the commentary, it was said, "There, one inner enclosure is twenty-eight cubits." If, according to their opinion, having combined all, the inner enclosure were twenty-eight cubits, In the commentary, it would have said, "There, an inner enclosure is a measure of twenty-eight cubits." If one were to say, "For one standing in the middle, there are fourteen due to the sevenfold penetration all around," it would be fitting to say so. But since it is not said thus, it should be seen as merely their opinion. Here, the meaning is that "there, there" is a locative of specification. "Eka" means a numerical limit. "Abbhantara" is a specific designation, or a definitive explanation. "Aṭṭhavīsatihatthappamāṇa" is a designation of a collection of things to be delimited.